>> president kwon: good afternoon. thanks for waiting, folks. welcome to the san francisco public utilities commission meeting. today is tuesday, july 24. before we take the roll, let me just say one thing. we have a number of speakers here today. we have a lot of speaker cards. to give everyone time, we're going to hold strictly to the 3 minutes. when you hear the second chime, that's when your time is over to make time for the next person. so hold it to that time or you will force me to sing to you and that will get you off quickly. the roll, please? [roll call]

>> clerk: we have a quorum. >> president kwon: i'm going to announce that closed session items 20-25 will not be heard today. and another note, too. august 14, the commission meeting will not occur. that meeting is not on the calendar. it's been canceled. so august 14 commission meeting does not exist on the calendar. item 3, approval of minutes from july 10, 2018. any discussion, commissioners? >> move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment on the minutes from the last meeting? all in favor? opposed? okay. all right. item number 4 is general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. i have peter druckmire.

>> good afternoon, chair kwon, and commissioners. i think you know we're a little disappointed that the bay delta plan didn't make it on to your agenda today. and your august 14 meeting is canceled. so that means your next meeting, august 28, is after the state water board hearing on august 21 and 22 and we've only had one public discussion of the bay delta plan, which was in january, 2017. so we really haven't had a chance to discuss it. we put together a slide show that i'm going to show you today and i'm supposed to let the folks downstairs know that we're going to shift over to the computer here. there are three of us who are -- who put in speaker cards so, we're hoping to run through it, depending on how the chair would like to proceed, we can stop after each person's time and restart the video or run

through. >> president kwon: let's just run through. >> okay. i will queue that up right now. do we have sound? >> yes. >> the san francisco bay delta is on the verge of total ecosystem collapse. the main cause of estuary decline is the last of sufficient freshwater in flow from california's central valley rivers. >> we had a tech person in earlier and he was talking about the buffering on this. it looks like it's buffering again. so maybe we can go to speaker 4 and 5 and come back to this and it will be good to go.

>> president kwon: sure. i will call them in the order i have them. if i can line up the next few folks. denise louis. >> denise and barry are part of mine. >> president kwon: okay. if they want to come forward and wait in queue. >> clerk: i believe bill martin is next. >> president kwon: all right. >> thank you. my name is bill martin. i'm a san francisco resident and customer of sfpuc. i've participated in four meetings, beginning in march this year. president kwon was present at the first two, march and april. a major topic has been the socioeconomic effects of the bay water quality control plan

update. dave warrant, who is also speaking today, and i attended two other meetings, one in may and another just yesterday. these meetings have been very informative and have helped us understand the assumptions and background information in the reports and the model used to generate the results. to prepare for these meetings, we read numerous documents, articles and reports. so please understand we have not arrived at our conclusions lightly. what do we learn? first, more transparency is better. even though these are complex topics, they can be communicated clearly. when people feel like they're getting the real story, they will respond. we found at the assumptions were not clearly listed and explained. we feel that we now understand a lot of these assumptions, but they were not at all clear at the beginning. not enough reasonable outcomes are modeled. for example, in the most recent drought, the governor told the

state to conserve. the bay area reduced water consumption by 23% with little or no effect. this was not even considered in model even though it really happened. a second example contracts allow the various water agencies to transfer water among themselves. they're allowed to do so. why not ask them how they would do it and put that in the model. the study did not include probability analysis. in the most recent drought, the governor asked them to conserve. in planning for a future drought, you would assign a higher probability of the governor taking action. that would result in a different

series of socioeconomic effects. greater transparency and openness and consideration of a much larger set of out comes and techniques would greatly enhance the validity of the report. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you, mr. martin. mr. warner? >> i'm dave warner. it's an honor to speak to you, guys. thank you for supporting our discussions regarding the socioeconomic studies. we've learned a lot in the meetings and our concerns come down to transparency and probability. if the studies had been better understood, they would have been used in a useful manner. the reader is left to draw his own conclusions. if you are an environmentist, you con exclusived th-- you

conclude that the economic harm will never happen. if you are a water manager, you assume that the harm will happen and start spreading the work. it's a mistake to leave this to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. the answer is in the middle, as demonstrated as follows. one of the discussions was around the lack of inclusion or discussion of mitigation items, such as investments in i.p.r. or desalination. mitigation actions can reduce the economic impact of the state water board's actions. the studies can be one-sided and leave the leader to his or her own conjecture. apologize if i misrepresent comments. ms. levin's comments were along the lines of, extremely long lead times needed, measured in decades to implement things like i.p.r. and desalination and cited a project started in the '90s that is still not done. if a project started now, no way

that it would be useful in eight years. and another comment, the return on i.p.r. and desalination are not as significant as imagined. both were thoughtful comments that i had not fully considered. if the probabilities have been incorporated, we would have had a belter understanding. if they're not include, no matter how difficult it is to come up with, it's up to the reader to make his or her own guesses, which we don't want. i think back to the comments of 2017 regarding the studies. a number of us claimed that the studies were wrong and commissioner moran responded to us and concluded that you had to believe the studies. in retrospect, we were all wrong. the answer, while not precise, is in between. incorporating mitigating actions

and their probabilities into the studies is just one example of many that would improve transparency and understanding. so there is only so much we can cover in 6 minutes and we would be pleased to discuss our findings further. we ask that you don't reference the studies until the multiple issues like the examples here are addressed. thank you for the excellent dialogue. >> president kwon: thank you. >> sorry about the technology glitch. i think we're ready to go. again, we're going to play a video. if we could have sound? >> the san francisco bay delta is on the verge of total ecosystem collapse. the main cause of the estuary's decline is the lack of sufficient freshwater in-flow from california's central valley rivers. in a last-ditch attempt to revive the bay delta and tributaries, state water control

board is updating the plan. the aim is to achieve theco-equal goals of restoring eco systems and ensuring a reliable water supply. phase one of the plan was initiated in 2009 to update in-stream flow objectives for the san joaquin river and for the delta. it will establish the flow objectives for rivers that flow into the san joaquin. in-flow would start at 40% between february and june, which are critical months for juvenile salmon rearing and outmigration. the plan allows for adaptive management that in-stream flows may increase or decrease depending on biological or environmental flows are met. nonflow measures, gravel augmentation and habitats, could

reduce flows. agriculture water districts have opposed the plan and the san francisco public utilities commission that manages the hetch hetchy has joined them. it provides water to several counties. one reason the sfpuc opposes the plan is because it has a contractual plan with modesto to follow their lead on in-stream flows. sfpuc gave up its right to think and act in accordance with the values of constituents. a recent public opinion opinion found that 93% of san francisc n franciscans conserved water during a drought and 94% said

they would conserve if it benefited the environment. 21% only if it enabled more development. three times as many people said they would be more likely to blend groundwater with drinking water if it benefited the environment versus enabling more development. 97% supported measures to protect san francisco bay and 92% restoration of the twalamy river. and 88% for affordable housing and 68% for market rate housing. support for more office space was low at 40%. another reason the sfpuc opposes the bay delta plan is because it's planning for a massive amount of development. plan bay area prepared bye-bye area metro forecast 4.3 million new jobs and 2 million more people to the bay area between 2010 and 2040. when asked if they thought that plan bay area would improve our

worsen their quality of life, 11% thought it would improve their lives. 65% felt it would maybe their lives worse. 85% believe that plan bay area would worsen their quality of life. to predict how the bay delta plan would impact the bay area, it's important to understand the sfpuc water rights, demand and storage. the sfpuc has junior walter rights to modesto and turlock. the first cubics belong to the irrigation districts, increasing to 4,000 cubic per second for spring runoff. above that, it belongs to the sfpuc. in a normal water year, the sfpuc is entitled to three times the water that is used. at full storage, we have enough water to last six years. even at theight of the recent

drought, sfpuc had enough water in storage to last three years. the sfpuc had enough water and storage to last 4 1/2 years. 2017 was the second wettest year on record and the sfpuc had the right to capture enough water to last 12 years. they didn't have the ability to store all of that water, so they had to dump it. the water we conserve during the drought didn't benefit the environment was behind dams, only to be dumped in a single season. sfpuc staff have used scare tactics. they claim it could lead to the loss of up to 188,000 jobs and $49 billion. their projections are based on an extremely flawed

socioeconomic study that has been debunked. water demand decreased by 30% between 2006 and 2016. had the sfpuc's projections been accurate, we should see the loss of 25,000 jobs. and $6.5 billion. in fact, 125,000 jobs were added in san francisco alone and the economy grew stronger than ever. in san francisco and san matao counties, jobs increased by 27% and water use declined by 23%. the trust modeled what would happen if the drought repeated with the bay area plan. the sfpuc could average the

drought with 10% rationing. sfpuc has not challenged our model, but asserts they will plan for a design drought, that combined the two worst droughts from the latter part of the last century. most water agencies plan for a three-year drought, but the sfpuc plans for an eight-year drought. if they did follow their rat n rationing scenario, the sfpuc would have enough water for two years. all the economic impacts that they forecast would have been unnecessary. in a worst-case scenario, if we experienced a drought worse than we've ever seen, water could be purchased from an agricultural walter district at a reasonable price. thank you for taking the time to learn more about the bay area

water delta plan. we can have a vibrant economy and healthier ecosystem. please share this video with others that you think might be interested. >> president kwon: thank you. so you arranged that speakers 1, 2, and 3 would be in this time frame. i will call on speaker 6. i will call you up three at a time, if you can queue up on this side. so i have speakers 6, 7, 8, mr. harry bernstein, ms. anne clark, and ms. sonya deermaier. mr. bernstein, please come up. >> good afternoon, president kwon, and commissioners. my topic today has to do with the balboa reservoir near city college. as you know, the upper balboa

reservoir site, east side, is owned by city college. the lower western site by the p.u.c. so i just have a few points to make. during -- so there's a major development being considered for that lower reservoir site. during previous moves to put housing in the reservoir, which is '80s to '90s, serious concerns were raised about the safety of the basin, especially involving fire and drought. those are two different issues, of course, given the physical layout, a fire would pose a tremendous threat and get easily out of control into the neighborhoods. another part is in the case of drought, the city has been trying to husband its water

resources, i know especially in the western side. there's been a number of engineering studies over the years, trying to discuss whether certain potential reservoirs should be used for storing water in the case of fire and other emergencies. and one, i guess, was done as recently as 2000/2002. and can i give you citations. and it was thought that it was a good idea to retain one of the reservoirs and then parking could be put on top of the various plans. so i think that should be considered rather than just declaring the property surplus. second, the city college board of trustees and administration have now agreed, the board has voted to finish the performing

arts education center, which began as a proposal, at least 10 years ago. it's imperative that no project goes forward in the lower reservoir until the completion of the pack in the upper reservoir, to allow proper staging for construction to occur in a timely manner. chancellor rocha has advocated for construction to be in as early as this year and estimates vary but it could last until 2002. the last thing is, the p.u.c. has said, when there's a north reservoir, that they with never develop that. they would change their mind. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next, ms. anne clark. how are you? >> good, thanks. i will talk very fast.

i'm anne clark, a member of nrdc and san francisco resident. i'm speaking for myself. i want to thank the sfpuc staff for all their work. during meetings with them, they've provided short and long-studied data and projected about sfpuc water and power programs. i attended meetings when sfpuc were working on lines and water flows. i attended a meeting july 19 in san matao and realized i looked some information. there are long-term and short-thermostatistics for customer and customer properties. i request that before closed session that the following information is provided to the public in an open session. public disclosure of short and

long term statistics about development, employment, density, water use and conservation in the last year, five years, 10 years, 15 years, going back 20 years. we all know how important water and rivers are for california and worldwide. water is not a cap-filled use and flush commodity. it's a lifeline of our planet. commissioners have vital and critical decisions to make. water is not just for real estate density and development. water must be conserved for use in cities, farms, orchards, vineyards and rivers. the public must be included in the decision making and not behind closed doors. thank you very much. >> president kwon: thank you, ms. clark. next, sonya deermair. is that right? >> yes. thank you. good afternoon. i'm sonya deermair, speaking for

sierra club bay area and california. we find it appalling that san francisco is opposing the state water board's proposal to leave some water in the twalamy river. we are also appalled that the commission has not seen fit to make this an agenda item for public discussion. san francisco is allying itself with greedy agricultural interests and central valley republicans and the trump administration, which is staging a full-scale attack on california's right to determine its water future. they are spewing extreme rhetoric, demanding the right to continue draining our rivers to the bottom, to the bed, and killing fish. the sfpuc is fueling the flames

with misinformation campaigns. the palliative measures that you are suggesting instead of flows, are akin to the idea that you can have a swimming pool with a leak and the water level is dropping and you're talking about adding a diving board, some waterslides, maybe lifeguards, and then maybe people will come back to swim. it's absurd. water quality control plan is a watershed moment in our state's history. it's pretty simple. without water, a river isn't a river. without freshwater to balance the incoming salt water, the delta is not an estuary. it's that simple. and san franciscans, i believe, would be outraged to know that you are siding with the interests that are about to drive smelt and salmon into

extinction. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. all right. next three speakers, michael adams, fred mohime, and mark gonzalez. so mr. adams, welcome. >> thank you very much. michael adams with the small grassroots group city college first coalition, one of several groups springing up to try to address the potential for transferring the balboa reservoir, which we call the west parking lot, to private developers, at great consequences, negative consequences, to students and neighborhoods. during previous moves to put housing in that reservoir, serious concerns were raised about the safety of the basin, especially involving fire and drought situations. no one is addressing this as it's already a basin, which

never had water in it, but the potential is there. all parties involved have publicly admitted that no research has been done current and future ridership needs of the 20,000 students a day that attend city college's main campus and need to get to their classes ontime, to say nothing about professors that have to move from site to site and need their cars. muni is great, but it's often late. they had voted to finish the world-class performing center. it's imperative that no project goes forward in the lower reservoir until the completion, perhaps 2022 of the performing arts education center and upper reservoir that will displace some of the parking supply. p.u.c. would be wise before

approving a surplus in density. we hope that's where we remain. areas described -- i'm a city planner by training and we describe transit-rich sometimes when we mean transit-gridlock. that's what we're facing in that area of the city. it's a nightmare at commute times. during the last few years, city college, as you know, was under what turned out to be an illegal attempt to terminate the college, which would have released the public land even easier of the whole college site. not only did c.c.f. survive, thanks to the efforts of many, but it's thriving, thanks to the efforts of wise political folks who sponsored free city college which supervisor increasing the

need for parking. just a thought, that that parcel is well suited for a solar panel-mixed use and parking underneath. it's not unusual for the city for that to happen. it happens on bart parking lots and the pg & e parking lot, where the trucks park under solar. thank you. >> president kwon: mr. fred moheim. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and chairman kwon. 43-year resident of san francisco and life-long learner at city college. i am a proponent of optimiza thank you -- optimizing public

land. the current plan limits parking for the college. in trying to optimize the use of the land, we end up diminishing the ability of the college to train the taxpayer work force that the city requires. and that's because we have many students and faculty members that can only access the college by vehicle and don't have access to public transit to get there. maybe not all the parking need it, but it makes it difficult. and that reflects on the building of the performing arts education center, which will provide venues on the south side of town. many of those will be in the evening and they will also require parking availability for

people that cannot get there on public transit. on other fronts, the land should not be sold to a private developer. any housing built should be 100% affordable. we need to be providing housing for the people that the city needs that work here, our teachers, firefighters, etc. i hope that the p.u.c. will not proceed with the sale of this land at this time. thank you. >> president kwon: thank you. next speaker, last one for item 4 unless someone else comes up, mr. mark gonzalez. mr. gonzalez, welcome. >> hello. thank you for having me here. i was born in san francisco. my parents were born in san francisco. my european ancestors came to california in the 1700s.

my indian ancestors came over thousands of years ago. when we think about the status of the rivers in california, we have to consider what we have done over the last 150 years. i know we're not going to restore it to that degree, but this is an opportunity as a population of caring people to take a step in restoring what has been taken. if you look at the populations from 50 years ago to today, what's the answer -- drastic reduction. what has been done? there's been some mitigation. but the research shows that the necessary river flows keeps more fish in the river in a healthier state. so that's an important consideration when you make this consideration. and peter would like to thank

you for the time. >> president kwon: thank you. any other general public comment? yes, sir. >> let me make a couple of comments, if i might. first of all, i think that this is not the end of a discussion. this is -- and i'm speaking about the bay delta plan. this issue will be with us for some time. and i do agree that a public hearing would be useful. one of the things that is frustrating from this side of the desk is because it's not a calendared item, we don't really have an exchange. you present your points of view. it's not calendared. we can't really respond. and i will stretch that a little bit by responding. so i think that a hearing would be useful. i would like to make a couple of comments on my own behalf.

one, i think there's been a lot of information that's been exchanged in the absence of a hearing. there's been a lot of information regarding the meetings that have taken place. there's been a lot of testimony in various forms. a lot of it has changed. and i think that also we've seen over time that that understanding has increased and positions have narrowed. the areas of disagreement are fewer today than they were a year ago. >> commissioner moran: while we do have similar data, we're no longer arguing about the models being used. we don't endorse each other's models fully, but we don't argue about them. we have similar data. we do have different roles and come to some different conclusions. that's how it should be and probably will always be true to

some degree. we have a responsibility to the fishery of the lower dams. we know that. we take that seriously. we also have an obligation to meet demands of the service area. we work to minimize those demands, we work on that. but our role is different here. we know more water will go to the river. the question is in what way? we believe we put water in the river that's targeted to the specific needs of the fishery that will produce more fish with less water. so there's a difference of approach. we have science on our side. you have science on your side. but i think that's the discussion -- that's the the core of the discussion.

the other thing that's at the core of the discussion is the planning that we use. i describe it as being prudent. it's been described as arbitrary. i would suggest that the design draft comes from droughts and was hard-earned. we have a standard in place that i believe is prudently protective of the water supply of the people that we serve. we can argue about the dollar impact and shortage, but it's not still a problem. and we have a responsibility to deal with that as best we can. the other thing i should say, our design drought doesn't really take account of climate change. if it's prudent with what we

know today, it will need to be adjusted over time to deal with greater varability and that will make it more conservative, not less. so those are the things i think that are out here. i didn't want this public comment to go unnoted from what the city's positions are and what we're trying to do. that's not to say this is a full discuss. i think we would benefit from having a fuller discussion about this. thank you, mr. chair. >> president kwon: thank you, commissioner. and i also, building on commissioner moran's comments here, was able to watch the video that you sent me yesterday and i shared with one of our scientists. i want to echo your call for a forum to have an active discussion. one more point, on the balboa reservoir, has there been a traffic study done of that area?

i've seen traffic studies from m.t.a. and so forth that talk about more of a future scenario and what they would like to see usage, but given that demand off ocean avenue, have they taken a look at with the building of the arts center, etc., how much and by what means people need to get there and ultimately park their car. the city is transit-first, but there are people that have no choice but to drive. >> to answer your question, i don't know. i can look into that, but i think it will be part of whatever environmental document will be done, whether it's for the performing arts center or for the balboa residents site. and there will be a parking study done as well. >> president kwon: thank you. okay. so we're moving on to item 5. communications. any discussion, commissioners? >> commissioner moller caen: yes, i do have.

for 5d, sewer inspection report, should i be happy with that? [laughter] >> the sewer inspection report, you are looking at total miles cleaned and miles replaced. mr. henderson can elaborate. >> brian henderson, acting a.g.m. for wastewater the sewer inspection report, we did achieve if you have the report in front of you there. we have largely met our goals annex seeded our oaverages over the last several years. >> the total miles cleaned has decreased over time and while

the miles of pipeline replaced is averaging 15 miles a year over the last four years, what it doesn't account for are miles tied up in contracts that haven't been completed. so they've been reported in the future outlook. but we are hitting our 150 miles inspected at this point. >> if you want to get into details, i can get some detailed questions answered that you may have. >> commissioner moller caen: i'm just very cautious and strict about meeting our goals. and this doesn't really show me that we have. >> that's correct. so we can get a better explanation of why we've gone do

down, but it's on the average of 15 years and 150 miles of pipe inspected. >> commissioner moller caen: i tend to look at -- if it's 15 a year, i would like to see 15 there and not have an average of four years. >> i understand. the way we issue contracts, it will be reported in december the following year. >> commissioner moller caen: i understand that. that does not go back four years. >> that's right. we can do a better explanation and report on that. >> president kwon: any public comment on item 5, communications? okay. item 6, other commission business. i have one. and this past saturday i had a chance to visit the san francisco rain garden.

shoutout to our wastewater team. you are doing a terrific job. and a shoutout to brian leaf, a s.f. public works gardener, who is singlehandedly leading the effort there on sunset. and by 37th, a really pretty area where they're reclaiming stormwater. also, will logsdon and kelly teeter. a ton of residents came out and they're including district 4 residents that come out and maintain a delta highway but for sunset instead to make sure there are drought-tolerant plants and it's also basically green infrastructure. so i wanted to give some kudos out. nicely done to the team. thank you. any other commission business? any public comment on what's

been discussed so far? item 7, report of the general manager. >> good afternoon. the first one up is cleanpowersf update with barbara hale. >> good afternoon. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. today's cleanpowersf update will include enrollment. we have a few items on the agenda that i will highlight as well. as you know, we're enrolling new customers. as of july 1, they're joining our program on the meter read date. the last described the 81,000 accounts that we serve. now with this enrollment process, it's 114,000 accounts. with that change, we're rebaselining the data we present to you. so i'm happy to report to you that our new opt-out percentage is 2.9%. the super green upgrade rate

exceeds our opt-out rate at 3.3% of customers. so everything's moving along successfully. with auto enrollment comes increased efforts to raise customer awareness. you've likely seen our advertisements. we're on line. on the radio, and in print. i have an example for you on the examiner. san francisco, 1986 called. it wants its dirty, expensive energy back learn more at cleanpowersf.org. the data is showing that the data is above industry average. the next enrollment is in act, get on the waitlist and enroll at sfpowersf.enroll.

also on the agenda today, we have items under communication two that are informal, g and h. i wanted to highlight those. we've sent our joint rate mailer to all customers. it was a side-by-side comparison between cleanpowersf rates and pg & e rates. it's an annual filing. and it shows that our rates are lower than pg & es, and our customers are seeing a bill savings by being enrolled in cleanpowersf. the second item, our draft innovative resource plan. this draft is shared to inform about procurement opportunities and how they're shaping up between now and 2030. this study will help us make decisions around achieving our

required renewable goals. you will hear more about that integrated resource plan as we move from draft to final. we'll be engaged with community stake holders as well as yourselves. and, finally, we have a compliance filing. we will be available if you have questions about that item once it's called. with that, i want to say thank you. >> president kwon: any questions, commissioners? thank you. next item is oceanside plant. >> i'm here to brief you on an incident that occurred at our oceanside plant on friday, the 13th, this month. we had a fire department response to an odor control

units. we have a fiberglass tank 8 feet in diameter and 12 feet tall, configured such that foul air is drawn in from our inlet and passed through a carbon bed and then a bed of potassium. we've been using this technology as long as i've been employed by the city but for over 30 years and never had a problem. we had a unit start to heat up a couple of weeks after a media changeout. we immediately called the manufacturer and monitored the situation very closely and it got to the point where we felt we needed the fire department's help, who came in and helped us to cool this unit that was heating up. and ultimately, we opened it up and we ended up having to flood

the unit and cool it with water. we got it to cool back down to ambient temperature and continue to monitor. once it was convinced that it was stable, we demobilized and continued to monitor the unit in question. we took it offline and continued to monitor it. on sunday, it continued to heat up again. it completely flooded the unit. now it was quite a mobilization with the fire department because it was highly unusual. we're trying to determine why it happened. the manufacture got out to the site on saturday, came from the midwest. the manufacturer has never seen

one of these -- this happen to one of these units either. so we took scam -- samples of the media and the condensate. so we're not going to put these units back on-line until we can determine what happened. >> is there any hazmat concern? >> a strong oxidizer. >> one tank or a series of tanks? >> only one tank reacted. all of our facilities have these same basic technology.

>> one tank was taken offline or all of them? >> all of them, all the ones where we've replaced the media have been taken offline until we get to the bottom of this. >> thank you. thank you, brian. >> nothing else to report at the moment. >> president kwon: i'm remiss in asking for public comment after each item. is there any public comment on cleanpower? oceanside operational event? okay. next item, please. >> item 8, presentation and discussion of proposed ordinance to repeat the reclaimed water use ordinance, article 22 of the public works code. >> good afternoon. steven ritchie. in 1991, the city passed an ordinance for recycled water

that was anticipated at that time. recycled walter has been evolving over the last 25 years, driven in large part by the geography and landscape the traditional walter supply plan and approach is paralleled and recycled water facilities for both the east side and west side of san francisco that would produce and deliver recycled waltha water for nondrinking uses. we're watering with recycled wat water. construction is well underway on that project. additionally, new, large buildings in san francisco are required to treat water for toilet flushing and irrigation. these demands are largely on the east side of the city, addressing the vast majority of demands for the recycled water plant. with the new requirements to incorporate on-site systems,

there is little value for the 1991 water use ordinance. and limited value to continue to plan for the recycled water project. so at this point, the board of supervisors will be enter towning an ordinance to rescind that recycled water ordinance. some places do have dual plumbing, so you lowered the threshold to give grants to projects that would do on-site treatment. the sfpuc and other utilities in california, looking at ways to treat for drinking purposes. we feel that's really the future for wastewater recycling. some in southern california are already doing it. i will be happy to answer any questions about this shift in direction. >> president kwon:

commissioners, anything? >> commissioner moran: this sounds like a logical extension of discussions we've been having for some time. is there anything required from us? >> no. no action required by you. >> commissioner moran: thank you. >> president kwon: before we move on. any public comment on item number 8? okay. moving right along. next item, please. >> clerk: item 9, presentation and discussion of the draft 100-year storm flood map. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can we bring up the slides?

>> we already saw that video. >> all right. i'm here to talk with you today about our draft 100-year storm flood risk map. this this is part of our flood resilience initiative, which we're doing here at the p.u.c. as well as with members of the city family. the definition to limit risk, impact, and recover quickly when damage occurs from flooding events. to increase flooding resiliency, we have a multi-pronged approach. we have capital projects to address the five-year, three-hour storm, our level of service, and 539 million proposed in the c.i.p. that the commission approved in the

spring. so that's our capital initiative. in collection system o.n.m., we have catch basin, tree-trimming, critical for the collection system. today's focus is on our program attic and legislative strategies, with the first one being to inform the public of the risk of flooding in a 100-year storm. we'll come back to you later to talk about other pieces of the initiative, which includes collaborati collaboration for increased resilient, but today's focus is the flood risk map. so the flood risk map identifies parcels in san francisco that are likely to be subject to flood risk in the 100-year storm. and these a storm with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. and the purpose of the map is to

inform for flood risks to make decisions about investments and preparedness on their property. we will support this in various ways, the main to support legislation that would require sellers and leasers to inform buyers and renters to inform them that the parcel is in the flood risk zone. i will speak for a few minutes about how we developed the map. we want to have a really transparent understanding of how this map was developed. as you will recall for our collection system planning, we used the urban watershed assistant process. the p.u.c. developed and validated a state-of-the-art hydraulic and hydrologic model.

we were able it show a watershed approach that included co collaboration with other agencies and a triple bottom line approach. out of the effort, one of the more significant contributions was this model that allowed us to develop a technically rigorous understanding of flood risk zones. this is to simulate the depth and extent of flooding in 100-year design storm. and we did that by using the model to understand the existing city drainage infrastructure, so that includes pumps and pipes, etc. it includes the ground surface data, so understanding imperviousne imperviousness, structures, float, and this model includes expected sea level rise through

2050. we then map that, first, identifying areas with deep flooding, which is designed as greater than 6 inches as well as contiguous flooding, designed as greater than half a block. we draw a boundary around the areas that are deep and contiguous. and the outcome of that effort, you can see in the map in front of you. so this is the draft city-wide flood-risk map for the 100-year storm. you can see the areas in purple are the 100-year flood risk zones. there is also a light blue color on the map as well and that indicates the water bodies like creeks and marshes. this is the low-lying areas that would have alignment with what continue to be flood risk areas today.

we also provided for your reference this map for 1869, which is pretty interesting. it shows the location of the historic waterways before development and, again, you can see that there's a very close alignment with where our flood risk areas are today because of the topography. so the maps that we developed are searchable and zoomable and we wanted to provide an example today of what it looks like as you zoom in a little bit farther into a neighborhood, for example, next to lake merced here. and we did notify all property owners who are within this map area, which is about 4,000 letters, notification letters, that we sent out and they can search and find their property on this map. this is an example of what folks will find when they good to sfwater.org/floodmaps and they can enter and search by address.

we did try to develop a bunch of resources for the public in parallel with this technical effort, so people could understand what the map means and navigate the information. like i mentioned, we sent out this notification letter. we also developed flood risk map information sheets and faqs available on the website and established a direct email and phone line specifically for this initiative. we fielded about 25 separate inquiries in those methods and we've had people visiting the website to look at the resources, which what flood insurance is available, how to sign up for adopt-a-dream program, etc. i